We have already devoted sufficient attention to Sismondi's "Reason." Let us now examine more closely his "heart." Let us attempt to bring together all the indications of his point of view (which we have studied hitherto only as an element touching upon theoretical questions), his attitude toward capitalism, his social sympathies, his understanding of the "socio-political" tasks of the epoch of which he was a participant.

## I. Sentimental Criticism of Capitalism

A distinctive feature of the era in which Sismondi wrote was the rapid development of exchange (monetary economy – in contemporary terminology), especially strikingly evident after the destruction of the remnants of feudalism by the French Revolution. Sismondi, without circumlocution, condemned this development and strengthening of exchange, attacked "fateful competition," calling upon "government to protect the population from the consequences of competition" (ch. VIII, 1. VII) and the like. "Rapid exchanges spoil the good morals of the people. Constant concern about profitable sales does not proceed without attempts to ask inflated prices and to deceive, and the more difficult it is for one who lives by constant exchanges to earn his living, the more he is tempted to resort to deceit" (I, 169). What naiveté was required to attack monetary economy in the very manner that our Populists attack it! "…Commercial wealth is only second in importance in the economic order; and territorial wealth (land-based wealth), providing the means of subsistence, should grow first. All this numerous class, living by trade, should receive a portion of the products of the land only when these products exist; it (this class) should grow only insofar as these products also grow" (I, 322–323). Has Mr. N—ov, that patriarchal Romantic, pouring out complaints across entire pages that the growth of trade and industry outpaces agricultural development, advanced a single step beyond this? These complaints of the Romantic and the Populist testify only to a complete misunderstanding of capitalist economy. Can there exist such capitalism in which the development of trade and industry would not outpace agriculture? After all, the growth of capitalism is the growth of commodity economy, that is, of the social division of labor, which separates from agriculture one by one the branches of industrial processing of raw materials, originally connected with the extraction of raw materials, their processing and consumption in one natural economy. Therefore, everywhere and always capitalism means faster development of trade and industry compared with agriculture, faster growth of the commercial-industrial population, greater weight and significance of trade and industry in the general structure of social economy {102}. It cannot be otherwise. And Mr. N—ov, repeating such complaints, proves once again that in his economic views he has not gone beyond superficial, sentimental Romanticism. "This unreasonable spirit of enterprise (esprit d'entreprise), this excess of all kinds of trade, which causes such a mass of bankruptcies in America, owes its existence, beyond all doubt, to the increase in the number of banks and that ease with which deceptive credit takes the place of real property (fortune réelle)" (II, 111), and so on without end. In the name of what did Sismondi attack monetary economy (and capitalism)? What did he oppose to it? Small independent production, the natural economy of peasants in the countryside, craft in the city. Here is how he speaks of the former in the chapter "On Patriarchal Agriculture" (ch. III, 1. III, "De l'exploitation patriarcale" – on patriarchal exploitation of land. Book 3 treats of "territorial," or land wealth):

"The first proprietors of land were themselves ploughmen; they performed all field labor through the toil of their children and servants. No social organization {103} guarantees greater happiness and greater virtues for the most numerous class of the nation, greater abundance (opulence) for all, greater stability for the social order… In countries where the farmer is proprietor (où le fermier est propriétaire) and where the products belong wholly (sans partage) to the very people who performed all the labor, that is, in countries whose agriculture we call patriarchal – we see at every step traces of the farmer's love for the house in which he lives, for the land he tends… Labor itself is a pleasure for him… In happy countries where agriculture is patriarchal, the particular nature of each field is studied, and this knowledge passes from father to son… Large-scale farming, directed by wealthier people, may perhaps rise above prejudices and routine. But knowledge (l'intelligence, that is, knowledge of agriculture) will not reach those who themselves work, and will be applied worse… Patriarchal economy improves the morals and character of this so numerous part of the nation upon whom all agricultural labor falls. Property creates habits of order and thrift, constant contentment eliminates the taste for gluttony (gourmandise) and drunkenness… Dealing almost solely with nature, the farmer has less reason than any other industrial worker to distrust people and use against them the weapon of dishonesty" (I, 165–170). "The first farmers were simple ploughmen; with their own hands they performed most of the agricultural labor; they proportioned their enterprises to the strength of their families… They ceased not to be peasants: they themselves hold the handles of their plough (tiennent eux-mêmes les cornes de leur charrue); they themselves tend cattle both in field and stable; they live in fresh air, accustomed to constant labor and modest food, which creates strong citizens and brave soldiers {104}. They almost never employ, for joint labor, day laborers, but only servants (des domestiques), always chosen from among their equals, whom they treat as equals, eat at the same table, drink the same wine, wear the same clothes. Thus the farmers with their servants form one class of peasants, animated by the same feelings, sharing the same pleasures, subject to the same influences, bound to the fatherland by the same ties" (I, 221).

Here you have the notorious "popular production"! And let no one say that Sismondi does not understand the necessity of uniting producers: he says directly (see below) that "he desires association just as much (as Fourier, Owen, Thompson, Muiron)" (II, 365). Let no one say that he stands for private property: on the contrary, the center of gravity in his theory is small-scale economy (cf. II, 355), not small private property. It is clear that this idealization of small peasant economy takes on a different appearance under different historical and living conditions. But both Romanticism and Populism exalt small peasant economy to apotheosis – this is beyond doubt.

Sismondi likewise idealizes primitive craft and guild organization.

"The village shoemaker, who at the same time is merchant, manufacturer, and worker, will not make a single pair of boots without receiving an order" (II, 262), whereas capitalist manufacture, not knowing demand, can go bankrupt. "It is certain, both theoretically and factually, that the guild system (corps de métier) prevented and should have prevented the formation of surplus population. It is equally certain that such population exists now and that it is a necessary result of the contemporary system" (I, 431). We could cite many similar passages, but we defer the analysis of Sismondi's practical recipes to what follows. Here let us confine ourselves to what has been presented, in order to understand Sismondi's point of view. The foregoing reasoning can be summarized as follows: 1) monetary economy is condemned for destroying the secure position of small producers and their mutual proximity (whether in the form of closeness between craftsman and consumer or farmer to fellow farmers); 2) small production is exalted for ensuring the independence of the producer and eliminating capitalism's contradictions.

Let us note that both these ideas form an essential part of Populism {105}, and let us attempt to understand their content.

The criticism of monetary economy by Romantics and Populists reduces to the observation of the individualism {106} and antagonism (competition) it generates, as well as the insecurity of the producer and instability {107} of social economy.

First, concerning "individualism." It is customary to counterpose the union of peasants of a given commune or craftsmen (or artisans) of a given trade – to capitalism, which destroys these bonds, replacing them with competition. This reasoning repeats the typical error of Romanticism, namely: the inference from capitalism's contradictions to the negation in it of a higher form of sociality. Does not capitalism, destroying medieval communal, guild, artisanal and similar bonds, establish others in their place? Is not commodity economy already a connection between producers, a connection established by the market? {108} The antagonistic, fluctuating and contradictory character of this connection does not give the right to deny its existence. And we know that precisely the development of contradictions increasingly reveals the strength of this connection, forcing all individual elements and classes of society to strive toward union, and at that toward union no longer within the narrow limits of a single commune or district, but toward union of all representatives of a given class throughout the nation and even across different states. Only a Romantic with his reactionary point of view can deny the existence of these bonds and their deeper significance, based on the commonality of roles in the national economy, rather than on territorial, professional, religious and similar interests. And if such reasoning earned Sismondi, writing at a time when these new connections generated by capitalism were still in their infancy, the name of Romantic, then our Populists are all the more deserving of such an evaluation, for now only completely blind people could deny the enormous significance of such connections.

Concerning insecurity and instability, etc., this is the old tune we discussed regarding the external market. In such attacks there manifests itself the Romantic, condemning with anxiety precisely what scientific theory values most highly in capitalism: the striving inherent in it toward development, the irresistible drive forward, the impossibility of stopping or reproducing economic processes in their former unchanged dimensions. Only a utopian, concocting fantastic plans to expand medieval unions (like the commune) to cover all society, could ignore the fact that precisely capitalism's "instability" is an enormous progressive factor, accelerating social development, drawing ever larger masses of population into the whirlwind of social life, forcing them to reflect upon its structure, compelling them themselves to "forge their own happiness."

Mr. N—ov's phrases about capitalism's "instability," about the disproportionate development of exchange, about the disruption of equilibrium between industry and agriculture, between production and consumption, about the abnormality of crises, and the like, demonstrate most incontrovertibly that he stands entirely from the point of view of Romanticism. Therefore, the criticism of European Romanticism applies to his theory word for word. Here is the proof:

"Let us listen to old Boisguilbert:

'The price of goods,' he says, 'ought always to be proportional, for only such mutual accord makes it possible for them to be reproduced again at every moment… Since wealth is nothing other than this constant exchange between man and man, between enterprise and enterprise, it would be a terrible delusion to seek the cause of poverty in anything other than that disruption of this exchange which is caused by deviations from proportional prices.'

Let us also listen to one of the latest {109} economists:

'The great law which ought to be applied to production is the law of proportion (the law of proportion), which alone is capable of maintaining the constancy of value… Equivalence must be guaranteed… All nations at different times attempted through numerous commercial regulations and restrictions to implement this law of proportionality, at least to some degree. But egoism inherent in human nature brought it about that this entire system of regulation was overthrown. Proportionate production (proportionale production) is the realization of true socio-economic science' (W. Atkinson. 'Principles of political economy', London, 1840, p. 170 and 195) {110}.

Fuit Troja! {111} This correct proportionality between supply and demand, which once again is beginning to become the object of such abundant desires, ceased to exist long ago. It has outlived itself; it was possible only in those times when the means of production were limited, when exchange occurred within extremely narrow bounds. With the emergence of large-scale industry this correct proportionality had of necessity (mußte) to disappear, and production had of necessity, with the necessity of natural laws, to pass through constant successive alternation of prosperity and decline, crisis, stagnation, new prosperity and so forth.

Those who, like Sismondi, wish to return to correct proportionality of production while at the same time preserving the contemporary foundations of society are reactionaries, because, to be consistent, they would have to strive for the restoration of other conditions of industry of earlier times as well.

What held production in correct, or nearly correct, proportions? Demand, which governed supply, preceded it; production followed step by step behind consumption. Large-scale industry, by the very character of the implements it uses, is forced to produce constantly in ever larger dimensions, cannot wait for demand. Production goes ahead of demand; supply forcibly takes demand.

In contemporary society, in industry based on individual exchange, the anarchy of production, while a source of so many evils, is at the same time the cause of progress.

Therefore, one of two things: either to wish for the correct proportions of past centuries with the means of production of our time – and this means to be a reactionary and a utopian at one and the same time.

Or to wish for progress without anarchy – and then it is necessary to abandon individual exchange in order to preserve productive forces." ("Das Elend der Philosophie", pp. 46–48) {56}.

The last words refer to Proudhon, against whom the author polemicizes, thereby characterizing the distinction of his point of view both from Sismondi's views and from Proudhon's position. Mr. N—ov, of course, would not agree with all aspects of either {112}. But pay attention to the content of this passage. What is the fundamental position of the cited author, his fundamental idea, placing him in irreconcilable contradiction with his predecessors? Undoubtedly, in the fact that he grounds the question of capitalism's instability (which all three writers observe) on historical soil and recognizes this instability as a progressive factor. In other words: he recognizes, first, the given capitalist development, occurring through disproportions, crises, and the like, as necessary development, saying that the very character of the means of production (machinery) evokes the boundless striving to expand production and the constant anticipation of supply over demand. Second, he recognizes in this given development elements of progress, consisting in the development of productive forces, in the socialization of labor within the bounds of entire society, in the increased mobility of population and its consciousness, and so forth. These two points exhaust his distinction from Sismondi and Proudhon, who agree with him in pointing to "instability" and the contradictions it generates, and in sincere striving to eliminate these contradictions. The failure to understand that this "instability" is a necessary characteristic of every capitalism and commodity economy in general leads them to utopia. The failure to understand the elements of progress inherent in this instability makes their theories reactionary {113}.

And now we propose to the Populist gentlemen to answer the question: does Mr. N—ov share the views of scientific theory on the two indicated points? Does he recognize instability as a property of the given system and given development? Does he recognize elements of progress in this instability? Everyone knows the answer is no, that Mr. N—ov, on the contrary, declares capitalism's "instability" a simple abnormality, a deviation, etc., and considers it decline and regression (cf. above: "deprives of stability"), idealizing that very economic stagnation (remember "age-old foundations," "principles sanctified by centuries," etc.) whose destruction constitutes the historical merit of "unstable" capitalism. It is clear therefore that we were entirely justified in counting him among the Romantics, and that no "quotes" and "references" on his part will change the character of his own reasoning.

We shall return below once more to this "instability" (in connection with the hostile attitude of Romanticism and Populism toward the decrease of agricultural population at the expense of industrial), but now let us cite one passage from the "Critique of Certain Propositions of Political Economy" devoted to analyzing sentimental attacks on monetary economy.

"These specific social roles (namely: the roles of seller and buyer) do not flow from human individuality in general, but from the relations of exchange between people producing their products in the form of commodities. The relations existing between buyer and seller are so little individual that both enter into them only insofar as the individual character of their labor is negated, namely insofar as it, as non-individual labor, becomes money. Therefore, it is just as senseless to consider these economically-bourgeois roles of buyer and seller eternal social forms of human individualism as it is unjust to lament these roles as the cause of the destruction of this individualism.

How deeply even the most superficial form of antagonism, manifested in buying and selling, strikes good people, is shown by the following extract from Isaac Pereire's book: 'Leçons sur l'industrie et les finances'. Paris. 1832 {114}. The fact that this same Isaac, as the inventor and dictator of the 'Crédit mobilier', acquired sad fame as a Paris stock market wolf, shows what is contained in the aforementioned book alongside sentimental criticism of economy. Mr. Pereire, at that time an apostle of Saint-Simon, says: 'Because individuals are isolated, separated from one another both in production and consumption, exchange of the products of their production exists between them. From the necessity of exchange flows the necessity of determining the relative value of objects. The ideas of value and exchange are thus closely linked to one another, and in their actual form both express individualism and antagonism… One can determine the value of products only because there exists selling and buying, in other words, antagonism between different members of society. One must concern oneself with price and value only where selling and buying occur, in a word, where each individual must struggle to obtain the objects necessary for sustaining his existence'" (cited work, p. 68) {57}.

The question is: in what does Pereire's sentimentalism consist? He speaks only of individualism, antagonism, struggle, inherent in capitalism, speaks the same thing our Populists say in various ways, and apparently speaks the truth, for "individualism, antagonism and struggle" truly constitute a necessary attribute of exchange and commodity economy. The sentimentalism consists in the fact that this Saint-Simonist, carried away by condemning capitalism's contradictions, overlooks behind these contradictions the fact that exchange too expresses a particular form of social economy, that it therefore not only separates people (this is true only in relation to medieval unions which capitalism destroys) but also unites them, forcing them to enter into relations with one another through the market {115}. This very superficiality of understanding, caused by the enthusiasm to "demolish" capitalism (from a utopian point of view), gave the cited author occasion to call Pereire's criticism sentimental.

But what to us is Pereire, long-forgotten apostle of long-forgotten Saint-Simonism? Why not take the latest "apostle" of Populism instead?

"Production… lost its popular character and assumed an individual, capitalist character" (Mr. N—ov, "Essays," p. 321–322).

See how this costumed Romantic reasons: "popular production became individual." And since by "popular production" the author means the commune, {58} he thereby points to the decline of the social character of production, to the narrowing of the social form of production.

Is this so? The "commune" provided (if it provided; however, we are ready to make any concessions to the author) organization of production only within a single separate commune, isolated from every other commune. The social character of production embraced only the members of one commune {116}. Capitalism, on the other hand, creates the social character of production throughout the entire state. "Individualism" consists in the destruction of social bonds, but the market destroys them, placing in their stead bonds among masses of individuals unconnected by commune, soslovie, profession, narrow district of craft, and the like. Because the connection created by capitalism manifests itself in the form of contradictions and antagonism, our Romantic does not wish to see this connection (although the commune, as an organization of production, never existed either without other forms of contradictions and antagonism inherent in old modes of production). The utopian point of view transforms his criticism of capitalism into sentimental criticism.

## II. The Petty-Bourgeois Character of Romanticism

The idealization of small production shows us another characteristic feature of Romantic and Populist criticism: its petty-bourgeois character. We saw how both French and Russian Romantics alike transform small production into a "social organization," a "form of production," opposing it to capitalism. We also saw that such opposition contains nothing except extreme superficiality of understanding, that it is an artificial and incorrect isolation of one form of commodity economy (large industrial capital) and its condemnation, while utopically idealizing another form of the same commodity economy (small production). This is the misfortune of both Western European Romantics of the early nineteenth century and Russian Romantics of the late nineteenth century – they concoct some abstract small economy standing outside social relations of production and overlook that small economy in reality stands in the context of commodity production – both the small economy of continental Europe of the 1820s and Russian peasant economy of the 1890s. In reality the small producer exalted to apotheosis by Romantics and Populists is therefore a petty bourgeois standing in the same contradictory relations as any other member of capitalist society, defending himself precisely through struggle which, on the one hand, constantly separates out a small minority of large bourgeois, and on the other hand, throws the majority into the ranks of the proletariat. In reality, as everyone sees and knows, there are no small producers who do not stand between these two opposite classes, and this middle position necessarily determines the specific character of the petty bourgeoisie, its duality, duplicity, its gravitation toward the minority happily emerging from struggle, its hostile attitude toward the "unsuccessful," that is, the majority. The further commodity economy develops, the stronger and sharper these qualities appear, the more evident it becomes that the idealization of small production expresses only a reactionary, petty-bourgeois point of view.

One should not be mistaken about the meaning of these terms, which the author of the "Critique of Certain Propositions of Political Economy" applied precisely to Sismondi. These terms do not at all say that Sismondi defended backward petty bourgeois. Sismondi never defended them: he wished to stand from the point of view of the laboring classes in general, he expressed sympathy for all representatives of these classes, he rejoiced, for instance, at factory legislation, he attacked capitalism and showed its contradictions. In a word, his point of view is entirely the same as that of contemporary Populists.

The question is: on what is the characterization of him as petty-bourgeois based? Precisely on the fact that he did not understand the connection between small production (which he idealizes) and large capital (which he attacks). Precisely on the fact that he did not see how his cherished small producer, the peasant, becomes in reality a petty bourgeois. One must never forget the following clarification concerning the reduction of theories of various writers to the interests and point of view of various classes:

"One should not think that the petty bourgeoisie intentionally strives to realize its egoistic class interests. It believes, on the contrary, that the special conditions of its emancipation are at the same time those general conditions within which alone modern society can be saved and class struggle eliminated. Likewise, one should not think that all representatives of democracy are shopkeepers or admirers of shopkeepers. By their education and individual position they may be as far from them as heaven from earth. Petty bourgeois make them representatives the circumstance that their thought is unable to transcend the boundaries which the life of petty bourgeois does not transcend, and therefore theoretically they arrive at those very same tasks and solutions to which the petty bourgeois is brought practically by his material interest and his social position. Such in general is the relation between political and literary representatives of a class and that class which they represent" (K. Marx, "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte," trans. Bazarov and Stepanov, pp. 179–180) {59}.

Therefore it is very comical when Populists think that references to petty-bourgeois character are made only in order to say something particularly venomous, that it is a simple polemical device. By such an attitude they demonstrate misunderstanding of the general views of their opponents, and most importantly – misunderstanding of the very foundations of that capitalism criticism with which they all "agree," and its distinction from sentimental and petty-bourgeois criticism. The very strong desire itself to avoid the question of these latter types of criticism, of their existence in Western Europe, of their relation to scientific criticism shows plainly why Populists do not wish to understand this distinction {117}.

Let us clarify with an example. In the bibliographic section of "Russian Thought" {60} for 1896, no. 5 (p. 229 ff.), it is stated that "of late there has appeared and with astounding rapidity grown a group" among the intelligentsia relating with principled and unconditional hostility to Populism. The reviewer points in briefest terms to the reasons and character of this hostility, and one cannot help noting with appreciation that he sets forth with complete accuracy the essence of the view hostile to Populism {118}. The reviewer does not share this point of view. He does not understand how ideas about class interests, etc., would oblige us to reject "popular ideals" ("simply popular, not Populist"; ibid., p. 229), consisting, supposedly, of the well-being, freedom, and consciousness of the peasantry, that is, the majority of the population.

"We will be objected to, of course," says the reviewer, "as has been objected to others, that the ideals of the peasant author (the discussion concerned wishes expressed by a peasant) are petty-bourgeois and that therefore our literature has been until now the representative and defender of the interests of the petty bourgeoisie. But this is simply a bugbear, and who except persons possessing the worldview and mental habits of a Zamoskvorechye merchant's wife can be frightened by such a bugbear?..

Strongly spoken! But let us listen further:

"…The fundamental criterion for both the conditions of human communal life and conscious social measures consists not in economic categories, drawn moreover from conditions foreign to the country, formed under other circumstances, but in happiness and well-being, both material and spiritual, of the majority of the population. And if a given way of life and certain measures for maintaining and developing such a way of life lead to this happiness, then call them petty-bourgeois or what you will – the matter will not change: they – this way of life and these measures – will still be essentially progressive and thereby represent the highest ideal accessible to society under given conditions and in its given state" (ib., pp. 229–230, emphasis of author).

Does the reviewer not see that in the heat of polemical zeal he leaped over the question?

Having called with great severity the charge of Populism's petty-bourgeois character "simply a bugbear," he brings nothing in proof of such a claim except the following, incredibly astonishing proposition: "The criterion… consists not in economic categories, but in the happiness of the majority." This is the same as saying: the criterion of weather consists not in meteorological observations but in the self-feeling of the majority! After all, what are these "economic categories" but the scientific formulation of the conditions of economy and life of the population, and not "population" in general, but specific groups of population occupying a specific place in the given structure of social economy? By counterposing to "economic categories" the most abstract proposition about "the happiness of the majority," the reviewer simply erases all development of social science since the end of the last century and returns to naive rationalist speculation, ignoring specific social relations and their development. With a single stroke of the pen he erases all that human thought, striving to understand social phenomena, has achieved at the cost of centuries of search! And, having freed himself thus from all scientific baggage, the reviewer considers the question already resolved. In truth, he directly concludes: "If a given way of life… leads to this happiness, then, no matter what you call it, the matter will not change." There we have it! But the question consisted precisely in determining what this way of life is. After all, the author just now pointed out that against people seeing in peasant economy a special way of life ("popular production" or what have you), others came forward asserting that this is not at all a special way of life, but the most ordinary petty-bourgeois way of life, the same as the way of life of any other small production in a country of commodity economy and capitalism. For if from the first view of itself follows that "this way of life" ("popular production") "leads to happiness," then from the second view also of itself follows that "this way of life" (petty-bourgeois way of life) leads to capitalism and to nothing else, leads to the throwing of the "majority of the population" into the ranks of the proletariat and the transformation of the minority into rural (or industrial) bourgeoisie. Is it not obvious that the reviewer fired in the air and, under cover of the shot, took for proven precisely that which the second view denies, thereby consisting the second view itself?

If he wished seriously to examine the second view, he should have proved one of two things: either that "petty bourgeoisie" is an incorrect scientific category, that one can imagine capitalism and commodity economy without petty bourgeoisie (as the Populists do imagine, thereby returning completely to Sismondi's point of view); or that this category is not applicable to Russia, that is, that we have neither capitalism nor the dominance of commodity economy, that small producers are not transforming into commodity producers, that in their midst there does not occur the indicated process of throwing out the majority and the consolidation of "independence" of the minority. Now, seeing how he accepts the reference to Populism's petty-bourgeois character as an empty desire to "offend" the Populist gentlemen, and reading after that the above-cited phrase about "bugbear," we cannot help but recall the well-known saying: "Forgive me, Kit Kitych! who will offend you? – You yourself will offend everyone!" {61}.

## III. The Question of the Growth of Industrial Population at the Expense of Agricultural

Let us return to Sismondi. Along with the idealization of petty bourgeoisie, along with the Romantic misunderstanding of how "peasantry" transforms under the given social structure of economy into petty bourgeoisie, there stands in Sismondi an extraordinarily characteristic view of the decrease of agricultural population at the expense of industrial. It is known that this phenomenon – one of the most vivid manifestations of a country's capitalist development – is observed in all civilized countries, as well as in Russia {119}.

Sismondi, as an outstanding economist of his time, could not, of course, fail to see this fact. He openly observes it, but completely fails to understand the necessary connection between it and capitalist development (even in general: with the social division of labor, with the growth of commodity economy caused by this phenomenon). He simply condemns this phenomenon as a deficiency of the "system."

Pointing to the enormous progress of English agriculture, Sismondi says:

"But, admiring these so carefully cultivated fields, one must look at the population which works them; it is half less than what would be in France on the same territory. In the eyes of some economists this is a gain; in my view – this is a loss" (I, 239).

It is understandable why the ideologists of the bourgeoisie considered this phenomenon a gain (we shall soon see that such is also the view of scientific criticism of capitalism): they formulated thereby the growth of bourgeois wealth, trade and industry. Sismondi, hastening to condemn this phenomenon, forgets to think about its causes.

"In France and Italy," he says, "where, it is calculated, four-fifths of the population belong to the agricultural class, four-fifths of the nation will feed on national grain, whatever the price of foreign grain" (I, 264). Fuit Troja! one might say of this. Now there are no longer such countries (even the most agricultural) which are not in complete dependence on grain prices, that is, on world capitalist grain production.

"If a nation cannot increase its commercial population except by demanding from each greater quantity of labor for the same wage, then it must fear the growth of its industrial population" (I, 322). As the reader sees, these are simply benevolent counsels devoid of all sense and significance, for the concept of "nation" is constructed here on artificial abstraction of contradictions between the classes which form this "nation." Sismondi, as always, simply evades these contradictions with innocent wishes that there be no contradictions.

"In England agriculture occupies only 770,199 families, trade and industry – 959,632, other conditions of society – 413,316. Such a large share of population existing by commercial wealth, out of the total 2,143,147 families or 10,150,615 people, is truly dreadful (effrayante). Fortunately, France is still far from such enormous numbers of workers depending on the luck of distant markets" (I, 434). Here Sismondi seems even to forget that this "good fortune" depends only on the backwardness of France's capitalist development.

Drawing the changes in contemporary structure which are "desirable" from his point of view (we shall speak of them below), Sismondi points out that "the result (of transformations in the Romantic manner) would undoubtedly be that not one country living only from industry would have to close one after another many workshops and that the urban population, which has increased beyond measure, would quickly decrease, while the population of villages would begin to grow" (II, 367).

On this example the helplessness of sentimental capitalism criticism and the impotent indignation of the petty bourgeois show themselves especially vividly! Sismondi simply laments that matters proceed thus and not otherwise. His sadness over the destruction of the eden of patriarchal stupidity and subjugation of the rural population is so great that our economist does not even analyze the causes of the phenomenon. He therefore overlooks that the increase in industrial population stands in necessary and unbreakable connection with commodity economy and capitalism. Commodity economy develops with the development of the social division of labor. And this division of labor consists in the fact that one after another branch of industry, one after another type of raw material processing separates from agriculture and becomes independent, thus forming industrial population. Therefore, to reason about commodity economy and capitalism – and not take into account the law of the relative growth of industrial population – means to have no understanding of the fundamental properties of the given structure of social economy.

"By its very nature, the capitalist mode of production constantly decreases the agricultural population relative to the non-agricultural, since in industry (in the narrow sense of the word) the growth of constant capital in relation to variable capital is connected with absolute increase of variable capital, despite its relative decrease {121}. Meanwhile, in agriculture variable capital needed for the exploitation of a definite quantity of land decreases absolutely; consequently, this capital can increase only on condition that new land is brought under cultivation {122}, and this in turn presupposes still greater increase of non-agricultural population" (III, 2, 177) {62}.

The point of view of the newest theory and on this point is diametrically opposed to Romanticism with its sentimental laments. Understanding of the necessity of the phenomenon naturally evokes a completely different attitude toward it, the ability to evaluate its different aspects. The phenomenon occupying us is one of the most profound and most general contradictions of the capitalist system. The separation of city from countryside, the opposition between them and the exploitation of the countryside by the city – these universal companions of developing capitalism – constitute a necessary product of the predominance of "commercial wealth" (using Sismondi's expression) over "land wealth" (agricultural wealth). Therefore, the predominance of the city over the countryside (in the economic, political, intellectual, and all other relations) constitutes a general and inevitable phenomenon in all countries with commodity production and capitalism, including Russia: only sentimental Romantics can lament this phenomenon. Scientific theory points, on the contrary, to the progressive aspect which large industrial capital introduces into this contradiction. "Together with the constantly growing preponderance of urban population, which capitalist production heaps up in large centers, it accumulates the historical moving force of society forward" {63} (die geschichtliche Bewegungskraft der Gesellschaft) {123}. If the predominance of the city is necessary, then only the attraction of population into cities can paralyze (and indeed, as history demonstrates, does paralyze) the one-sided character of this predominance. If the city necessarily stands out in a privileged position, leaving the countryside subordinated, undeveloped, helpless and beaten down, then only the influx of rural population into cities, only this mixing and merging of agricultural and non-agricultural population can raise the rural population from its helplessness. Therefore, in response to the reactionary laments and complaints of Romantics, the newest theory points to how precisely this approximation of the living conditions of agricultural and non-agricultural populations creates the conditions for eliminating the opposition between city and countryside.

The question now is: on what point of view do our economist-Populists stand on this question? Unconditionally on the sentimental-Romantic point of view. They not only do not understand the necessity of the growth of industrial population under the given structure of social economy, but even try not to see the phenomenon itself, resembling a certain bird that hides its head under its wing. P. Struve's indications that in Mr. N—ov's reasoning about capitalism a crude error is the assertion of absolute decrease of variable capital ("Critical Notes," p. 255), that to counterpose Russia to the West by the smaller percentage of industrial population and not to take into account the growth of this percentage through capitalism's development – is absurd {124} ("Sozialpolitisches Centralblatt" {64}, 1893, no. 1), remained, as was to be expected, unanswered. Speaking constantly of Russia's peculiarities, economist-Populists did not even manage to pose the question of the actual peculiarities of the formation of industrial population in Russia {125}, to which we pointed briefly above. Such is the theoretical attitude of Populists to the question. In practice, however, reasoning about the situation of peasants in post-reform villages and not constrained by theoretical doubts, Populists do recognize the resettlement of peasants, thrown out of agriculture, into cities and factory centers, and limit themselves merely to lamenting the phenomenon, exactly as Sismondi lamented it {126}. The profound process of transformation of the living conditions of the masses of the population, which took place in post-reform Russia – a process that for the first time disturbed the sedentariness and attachment to place of the peasantry and created their mobility and approximation of agricultural workers to non-agricultural workers, of villagers to townspeople {127} – remained by them completely unnoticed either in its economic significance, or (perhaps even more importantly) in its moral and educational significance, serving only as occasion for sentimental-Romantic sighs.

## IV. The Practical Wishes of Romanticism

Now we shall attempt to bring together Sismondi's general point of view on capitalism (a task which, as the reader remembers, Efrussi set himself) and examine the practical program of Romanticism.

We saw that Sismondi's merit consisted in being one of the first to point to capitalism's contradictions. But, having pointed to them, he not only did not attempt to analyze them and explain their origin, development and tendency, but even regarded them as unnatural or erroneous deviations from the norm. Against these "deviations" he naively rose up with sententiousness, denunciations, counsels to eliminate them, etc., as if these contradictions did not express the real interests of real groups of the population occupying a specific place in the general structure of contemporary social economy. This is the most vivid characteristic of Romanticism: to take the contradiction of interests (deeply rooted in the very structure of social economy) for a contradiction or error of doctrine, system, measures, etc. The narrow horizon of the Kleinbürger {128}, who himself stands apart from developed contradictions and occupies an intermediate, transitional position between two antipodes, combines here with naive idealism – we are almost ready to say: bureaucratism – explaining the social structure by people's opinions (especially the opinions of those in power), rather than the reverse. Let us cite examples of all such judgments of Sismondi.

"Forgetting people for things, has not England sacrificed the goal to the means?

England's example is all the more striking because it is a free nation, enlightened, well-governed, and all its miseries arise solely from the fact that it followed a false economic direction" (I, p. IX {129}). For Sismondi, England generally plays the role of a terrifying example for the continent – exactly as it does for our Romantics, imagining they are saying something new, but merely repeating the oldest trash. "By drawing my readers' attention to England, I wished to show… the history of our own future, if we continue to act according to those principles which she followed" (I, p. XVI).

"…The Continental states consider it necessary to follow England in its manufacturing career" (II, 330). "There is no more striking, more terrible a spectacle than that which England presents" (II, 332) {130}.

"One must not forget that wealth is only what represents (n'est que la représentation) the pleasures and conveniences of life" (here general wealth is placed instead of bourgeois wealth!) "and to create artificial wealth, condemning the nation to all that actually represents poverty and suffering, means to take the name of the thing for its essence" (prendre le mot pour la chose) (I, 379).

"…While nations followed only the indications (commands, indications) of nature and used the advantages provided by climate, soil, disposition, possession of raw materials, they did not place themselves in an unnatural position (une position forcée), they did not seek apparent wealth (une opulence apparente), which turns into real poverty for the mass of the people" (I, 411). Bourgeois wealth is only apparent! "It is dangerous for a nation to close its doors to foreign trade: the nation is, so to speak (en quelque sorte), forced thereby into false activity, which will lead to its ruin" (I, 448) {131}.

"…In wages there is a necessary part which must sustain the life, strength and health of those who receive it… Woe to that government which touches this part – it sacrifices everything (il sacrifie tout ensemble) – both people and hope of future wealth… This distinction helps us understand how false is the policy of those governments which have reduced the working classes to wages barely necessary for increasing the net incomes of manufacturers, merchants and proprietors" (II, 169) {132}.

"The time has finally come to ask: where are we going?" (où l'on veut aller) (II, 328).

"The separation of proprietors and laborers, the opposition of their interests, is a consequence of the contemporary artificial organization which we have given human society… The natural order of social progress never intended to separate people from things or wealth from labor; in the countryside – the proprietor could remain a farmer; in the city – the capitalist could remain a craftsman (artisan); the separation of the laboring class from the idle class was not at all essentially necessary for the existence of society or for production; we introduced it for the greater advantage of all; it is up to us (il nous appartient) to regulate it so as actually to achieve this advantage" (II, 348).

"By thus placing producers in opposition to one another (that is, masters to workers), they were forced to go a path diametrically opposed to society's interests… In this constant struggle for lowering wages, the social interest, in which, however, each participates, is forgotten by all" (II, 359–360). And before this too a recollection of the paths bequeathed by history: "At the beginning of social life each person possessed capital through which he applied his labor, and almost all craftsmen lived on income which combined equally profit and wages" (II, 359) {133}.

It seems there is enough… One can be certain that the reader, unfamiliar with either Sismondi or Mr. N—ov, will have difficulty saying of which of the two Romantics, beneath or above the line, the point of view is more primitive and naive.

The practical wishes of Sismondi, to which he devoted so much space in his "Nouveaux Principes," fully correspond to this.

Our difference from A. Smith, Sismondi states in the very first book of his work, consists in the fact that "we almost always call for that very government intervention which A. Smith rejected" (I, 52). "The state does not correct distribution…" (I, 80). "The legislator could assure the poor certain guarantees against universal competition" (I, 81). "Production must be proportioned to the social income, and those who encourage unlimited production, without concerning themselves to know this income, drive the nation to ruin, thinking to open the path to wealth" (le chemin des richesses) (I, 82). "When the progress of wealth is gradual (gradué), when it is proportioned to itself, when no part of it develops inordinately rapidly, then it spreads universal well-being… Perhaps the duty of governments consists in slowing down (ralentir!!) this movement, in order to regulate it" (I, 409–410).

Sismondi has not the least understanding of the enormous historical significance of the development of society's productive forces, occurring precisely through contradictions and disproportionalities!

"If government exerts a regulating and moderating effect on the striving for wealth – it can be infinitely beneficent" (I, 413). "Certain trade regulations, now condemned by general opinion, if they deserve condemnation as encouragements to industry, may perhaps be justified as a bridle" (I, 415).

Already in these reasonings, Sismondi's remarkable historical tactlessness is evident: he has not the least idea that the very meaning of the liberation from medieval regulations consisted in the entire historical sense of the period of which he was contemporary. He does not feel that his reasoning – grist for the mill of those times' defenders of the ancien régime {134}, who were still so powerful even in France, not to speak of other states of the Western European continent, where they ruled {135}.

Thus, the starting point of Sismondi's practical wishes is guardianship, retardation, regulation.

Such a point of view flows entirely naturally and inevitably from the whole circle of Sismondi's ideas. He lived precisely at a time when large machine industry took its first steps on the European continent, when that sharp and abrupt transformation of all social relations under the influence of machinery began (note well: under the influence of machine industry, not "capitalism" in general) {136}, transformation customarily called in economic science industrial revolution. Here is how one of the first economists capable of appreciating the full depth of the upheaval creating modern European societies in place of patriarchal semi-medieval societies characterized it:

"…The history of English industrial development in the last 60 years (written in 1844) has nothing equal to it in the annals of mankind. 60–80 years ago England was a country like any other, with small cities, with insignificant and simple industry, with rare but relatively considerable agricultural population. Now it is a country unlike any other, with a capital of 2 1/2 million inhabitants; with large industrial cities; with industry supplying products to the entire world and producing almost everything through extraordinarily complex machinery; with enterprising, intelligent, dense population, two-thirds of which are engaged in industry and trade and consist of completely different classes; this population with different customs and different needs constitutes, in fact, a completely different nation compared to England of that time. The industrial revolution has the same significance for England as the political revolution for France, as the philosophical revolution for Germany. And the difference between England of 1760 and England of 1844 is, at least, as great as between France under the ancien régime and France of the July Revolution" {137}.

This was a complete "break-up" of all old, entrenched relations, whose economic base was small production. It is understandable that Sismondi, from his reactionary, petty-bourgeois point of view, could not understand the significance of this "break-up." It is understandable that he above all and most desired, invited, called, demanded to "stop the break-up" {138}.

How, then, to "stop the break-up"? First, of course, through support of popular… or rather "patriarchal production," peasantry and small agriculture in general. Sismondi devotes an entire chapter (P. VII, ch. VIII) to how "government should protect the population from the consequences of competition."

"With respect to the agricultural population, the general task of government consists in assuring working people (à ceux qui travaillent) some share of property, or in supporting (favoriser) what we called patriarchal agriculture in preference to all other" (II, 340).

"Elizabeth's Statute, which was not observed, forbids building a rural cottage (cottage) in England except on condition of endowing it with land of four acres. If this law had been executed, no marriage could have been concluded between day laborers without their receiving their cottage, and no cottager would have been brought to the last degree of poverty. This already would have been something (c'est quelque chose), but it would not be enough; in England's climate peasant population would live in need with 4 acres per family. Now cottagers in England have, for the most part, only 1 1/2–2 acres of land, for which they pay fairly high rent… It should be obligatory by law… for the proprietor, when he divides his field among many cottagers, to give each sufficient land to live" (II, 342–343) {139}. The reader sees that Romanticism's wishes are entirely homogeneous with the wishes and programs of Populists: they are constructed precisely the same way on ignorance of actual economic development and on the senseless substitution, in the era of large machine industry, fierce competition and struggle of interests – of conditions reproducing the patriarchal conditions of hoary antiquity.

## V. The Reactionary Character of Romanticism

Of course, Sismondi could not fail to be aware of how actual development was proceeding. Therefore, requiring "encouragement of small agriculture" (II, 355), he directly says that one should "give agriculture a direction diametrically opposite to that which it now follows in England" (II, 354–355) {140}.

"England has, fortunately, the means to do much for its rural poor by dividing among them its vast communal lands (ses immenses communaux)… If its communal lands were divided into free holdings (en propriétés franches) of 20 to 30 acres, then they (the English) would see how that independent and proud class of settlers would be reborn, the yeomanry, whose almost complete destruction they now regret" (II, 357–358).

"Plans" of Romanticism are shown to be very easily realizable – precisely thanks to that ignoring of real interests which constitutes the essence of Romanticism. "Such a proposal (to distribute land in small plots to day laborers, obliging landowners to care for the latter) will probably anger the large landowners, who alone now enjoy legislative power in England; but, nevertheless, it is just… Large landowners alone have need for day laborers; they created them – let them maintain them" (II, 357).

Reading such naiveties written in the early years of the century, one is not surprised to think: the "theory" of Romanticism turned out to correspond to that primitive state of capitalism in general, which conditioned such a primitive point of view. The factual development of capitalism – the theoretical understanding of it – the point of view on capitalism, among all these in that time there still existed correspondence, and Sismondi, in any case, appears as a writer integral and true to himself.

"We have already indicated," says Sismondi, "what patronage this class (namely the class of craftsmen) once found in the institution of guilds and corporations (des jurandes et des maîtrises)… The point is not to restore their strange and oppressive organization… But the legislator should aim to raise the remuneration for industrial labor, to draw wage workers from that precarious (précaire) condition in which they live, and finally, to facilitate their acquiring what they call a position (un état)… Now workers are born and die workers, whereas formerly the position of worker was only preparation, the first step to a higher position. This very ability to progress (cette faculté progressive) is important to restore. It is necessary to make matters such that masters have an interest in advancing their workers to a higher position; that a man entering a manufactory begins truly with work for simple wage, but always has before him hope, with good conduct, to receive a share in the enterprise's profits" (II, 344–345).

It is difficult to express more vividly the point of view of the petty bourgeois! Guilds are Sismondi's ideal, and his reservation about the undesirability of restoring them obviously has only the meaning that one should take the principle, the idea of the guild (just as Populists wish to take the principle, the idea of the commune, rather than the contemporary fiscal union called the commune) and discard its medieval monstrosity. The absurdity of Sismondi's plan does not consist in the fact that he defended guilds completely, wanted to restore them completely – he did not set himself such a task. The absurdity consists in the fact that he takes as a model a union arising from narrow, primitive needs of uniting local craftsmen, and wishes to apply this measure, this model, to capitalist society, in which the uniting, socializing element is large machine industry, breaking down medieval partitions, erasing local, regional and professional differences. Conscious of the necessity of union, unification in general, in one form or another, no less than our contemporary Populists, the Romantic takes as a model the union satisfying narrow needs for unification in patriarchal, immobile society, and wishes to apply it to a society completely transformed – with mobile population, with socialization of labor not within the bounds of some commune or some corporation, but within the bounds of the entire state and even beyond the bounds of a single state {142}.

This very error gives the Romantic the completely deserved qualification of reactionary, understanding by this term not the desire to restore simply and directly medieval institutions, but precisely the attempt to measure the new society by the old patriarchal measure, precisely the desire to seek the model in old, completely unsuitable to the changed economic conditions, orders and traditions.

Efrussi absolutely failed to understand this. The characterization of Sismondi's theory as reactionary was understood by him in a crude, vulgar sense. Efrussi was troubled… How so, he reasoned, can Sismondi be a reactionary when he directly says he does not at all wish to restore guilds? And Efrussi decided that such "accusation" of Sismondi "of retrogradism" is unjust; that Sismondi, on the contrary, looked "correctly at guild organization" and "fully appreciated its historical significance" (no. 7, p. 147), as this, supposedly, was elucidated by the historical research of such and such professors about the good aspects of guild organization.

Quasi-scholarly {143} writers often possess a remarkable ability not to see the forest for the trees! Sismondi's point of view on guilds is characteristic and important precisely because he links his practical wishes with them {144}. Precisely for this reason the characterization of reactionary is linked with his teaching. But Efrussi takes up, without rhyme or reason, to discuss recent historical works on guilds!

The result of these misplaced and quasi-scholarly reasonings was that Efrussi avoided precisely the essence of the question: is it just or unjust to characterize Sismondi's doctrine as reactionary? He overlooked precisely what is most important – Sismondi's point of view. "I was presented," said Sismondi, "in political economy as an enemy of social progress, a partisan of barbarous and coercive institutions. No, I do not wish what has already been, but I wish something better compared to the contemporary. I cannot judge the present otherwise than by comparing it with the past, and I am far from wishing to restore old ruins when I prove through them the eternal needs of society" (II, 433). The wishes of Romantics are quite good (as are the wishes of Populists). Consciousness of capitalism's contradictions places them above blind optimists denying these contradictions. But Sismondi is recognized as a reactionary not because he wished to return to the Middle Ages, but precisely because in his practical wishes he "compared the present with the past," rather than with the future, precisely because he proved the "eternal needs of society" {145} through "ruins," rather than through the tendencies of the latest development. It is precisely this petty-bourgeois point of view of Sismondi, distinguishing him sharply from other writers who at the same time and after him also proved the "eternal needs of society," that Efrussi failed to understand.

Efrussi's error reveals this same narrow understanding of the terms "petty-bourgeois," "reactionary" doctrine, of which we spoke above regarding the first term. These terms do not at all indicate the egoistic lusts of a petty shopkeeper or the desire to stop social development, return backward: they speak only of the incorrectness of a given writer's point of view, of the limitations of his understanding and horizon, evoking the choice of such means (for achieving quite good goals) which in practice cannot be effective, which can satisfy only a small producer or serve the defense of antiquity. Sismondi, for instance, is not at all a fanatic of small private property. He understands the necessity of union, association no less than our contemporary Populists. He expresses the wish that "half the profit" in industrial enterprises "be distributed among associated workers" (II, 346). He directly stands for the "system of association," in which all "successes of production" would benefit "those engaged in it" (II, 438). Discussing the relation of his teaching to the known teachings of Owen, Fourier, Thompson, Muiron of that time, Sismondi declares: "I would wish, like them, that association be realized between those who together produce a given product, instead of placing them in opposition to one another. But I do not think that the means which they proposed for this end could ever lead to it" (II, 365).

The difference between Sismondi and these writers consists precisely in the point of view. Therefore it is entirely natural that Efrussi, not having understood this point of view, completely incorrectly represented Sismondi's relation to these writers.

"If Sismondi exerted too weak an influence on his contemporaries," we read in "Russian Wealth," no. 8, p. 57, "if the social reforms he proposed did not achieve realization, this is explained chiefly by the fact that he greatly anticipated his epoch. He wrote at a time when the bourgeoisie celebrated its honeymoon… It is understandable that under such conditions the voice of a man demanding social reforms should remain a voice crying in the wilderness. But we know that posterity treated him not much better. Perhaps this is explained by the fact that Sismondi is, as we have already said above, a writer of a transitional epoch; although he desires great changes, he nevertheless cannot completely free himself from the old. To moderate people he therefore seemed too radical, while from the point of view of representatives of more extreme directions he was too moderate."

First, to say that Sismondi by his proposed reforms "anticipated the epoch" – means absolutely not to understand the very essence of Sismondi's doctrine, who himself says of himself that he compared the present with the past. It required infinite nearsightedness (or infinite partiality toward Romanticism) to overlook the general spirit and general significance of Sismondi's theory because Sismondi sympathized with factory legislation {146} and the like.

Second, Efrussi thus believes that the difference between Sismondi and other writers consists only in the decisiveness of the reforms proposed: they went further, he did not entirely free himself from the old.

This is not the case. The difference between Sismondi and these writers lies much deeper – not at all in the fact that some went further, others were timid {147}, but in the fact that the very character of reforms appeared to them from two diametrically opposite points of view. Sismondi proved the "eternal needs of society," and these writers also proved eternal needs of society. Sismondi was a utopian, basing his wishes on abstract idea rather than real interests – and these writers were utopians, basing their plans also on abstract idea. But precisely the character of their plans is completely different owing to the fact that on the latest economic development, which posed the question of "eternal needs," they looked from diametrically opposite points of view. The indicated writers anticipated the future, brilliantly divined the tendencies of that "break-up" which machine industry was performing before their eyes carried out on the old way of life. They looked in the same direction in which actual development itself was moving; they truly anticipated this development. Sismondi, on the other hand, turned his back to this development; his utopia did not anticipate the future but restored the past; he looked not forward but backward, dreaming of "stopping the break-up" – that very "break-up" from which the indicated writers derived their utopias {148}. This is why Sismondi's utopia is recognized – and entirely justly – as reactionary. The basis for such characterization consists, we repeat once more, only in the fact that Sismondi did not understand the progressive significance of that "break-up" of the old, semi-medieval, patriarchal social relations of Western European states which large machine industry began to carry out from the end of the last century.

This specific point of view of Sismondi peeps through even amid his reasonings about "association" in general. "I wish," he says, "that ownership of manufactures (la propriété des manufactures) be divided among a large number of middle capitalists, rather than concentrated in the hands of one man owning many millions…" (II, 365). Still more strikingly the petty-bourgeois point of view manifests itself in such a tirade: "One must eliminate not the class of the poor, but the class of day laborers; they should be returned to the class of proprietors" (II, 308). "Return" to the class of proprietors – in these words the entire essence of Sismondi's doctrine!

Of course, Sismondi must have himself felt the impracticability of his kind wishes, felt the sharp dissonance between them and contemporary divergence of interests. "The task of reuniting the interests of those who participate together in the same production (qui concourrent à la même production)… is, without doubt, difficult, but I do not think that this difficulty is as great as is supposed" (II, 450) {149}. Consciousness of this discrepancy between his wishes and aspirations and the conditions and development of reality naturally evokes an effort to prove that "it is not yet too late" to "return," etc. The Romantic attempts to lean on the underdevelopment of the contradictions of the contemporary system, on the country's backwardness. "Nations conquered the system of freedom into which we entered (the reference was to the fall of feudalism); but at the time when they destroyed the yoke which they had worn so long, the laboring classes (les hommes de peine – representatives of labor) were not deprived of all property. In the countryside they as tenant farmers, leaseholders (censitaires), renters possessed the land (ils se trouvèrent associés à la propriété du sol). In cities as members of corporations, craft unions (métiers), formed by them for mutual protection, they were independent industrialists (ils se trouvèrent associés à la propriété de leur industrie). Only in our days, only in the most recent times (c'est dans ce moment même) the progress of wealth and competition breaks all these associations. But this break-up (révolution) is not yet half complete" (II, 437).

"True, only one nation now finds itself in this unnatural condition; only in one nation do we see this constant contrast of apparent wealth (richesse apparente) and terrible poverty of a tenth of the population, forced to live at the expense of public charity. But this nation, so worthy of imitation in other respects, so dazzling even in its errors, seduced by its example all the statesmen of the continent. And if these reflections cannot benefit it, then I shall, at least, it seems to me, render a service to humanity and my countrymen by showing the dangers of the path it follows, and by proving from its own experience that to base political economy on the principle of unlimited competition – means to sacrifice the interest of humanity to the simultaneous action of all personal passions" (II, 368) {150}. Thus Sismondi concludes his "Nouveaux Principes."

Marx formulated the general significance of Sismondi and his theory with clarity in the following opinion, which first gives a sketch of those conditions of Western European economic life which produced such a theory (and produced it precisely at the time when capitalism was only just beginning to create large machine industry there), and then its evaluation {151}.

"Medieval burgherdom and the class of small peasants were predecessors of the modern bourgeoisie. In countries less developed in an industrial and commercial sense, this class continues to this day to vegetate alongside the developing bourgeoisie.

In those countries where modern civilization has developed, there arose – and as a supplementary part of capitalist society continues constantly to arise anew – a bourgeois middle estate (which wavers between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie). But competition constantly drives members of this class into the ranks of the proletariat, and they begin even to foresee the moment when, with the development of large industry, they will completely disappear as an independent part of modern society, and in trade, manufacture and agriculture will be replaced by supervisors and wage laborers.

In such countries as France, where the peasantry constitutes far more than half the entire population, it was naturally inevitable that writers should appear who, taking the side of the proletariat, applied to capitalist conditions a petty-bourgeois and petty-peasant measure and defended the cause of workers from a petty-bourgeois point of view. Thus arose petty-bourgeois social doctrine. Sismondi stands at the head of this kind of literature not only in France but even in England.

This doctrine was excellent at discerning the contradictions of contemporary conditions of production. It exposed the hypocritical optimism of economists. It indicated the destructive effect of machine production and division of labor, the concentration of capital and landed property, surplus production and crises, the inevitable ruin of petty bourgeoisie and peasantry, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy of production, crying injustices in the distribution of wealth, the ruinous industrial war of nations against one another, the dissolution of old morals, old family relations and old nationalities {152}.

The positive side of the demands of this tendency consists either in the restoration of the old modes of production and exchange, and with them the old property relations and the old social structure; or else it strives forcibly to hold the contemporary modes of production and exchange within the framework of the old property relations, which they have already shattered and must necessarily shatter. In both cases it is reactionary and utopian at the same time.

Guild organization of industry and patriarchal agriculture are its final word" {153} {65}.

We attempted to demonstrate the justice of this characterization by examining each individual element in Sismondi's doctrine. Now let us note only the curious procedure employed by Efrussi to cap all his blunders in his exposition, criticism and evaluation of Romanticism. The reader remembers that at the very beginning of his article (in no. 7 of "R. B.") Efrussi declared that the attribution of Sismondi to reactionaries and utopists was "unjust" and "incorrect" (I. c., p. 138). To prove such a thesis, Efrussi, first, managed to pass over in complete silence what is most important, namely the connection of Sismondi's point of view with the position and interests of a special class of capitalist society, small producers; second, in examining individual propositions of Sismondi's theory, Efrussi partly represented his attitude toward the newest theory in a completely incorrect light, as we showed above, and partly simply ignored the newest theory, defending Sismondi with references to German scholars who "did not go further" than Sismondi; third, finally, Efrussi wished to summarize the evaluation of Sismondi in the following manner: "Our (!) view of the significance of Simonde de Sismondi," says he, "we can (!!) summarize in the following words" of one German economist ("R. B." no. 8, p. 57), and further he cites the noted above passage, that is, only a fragment of the characterization given by this economist, and at that the fragment where the connection of Sismondi's theory with a special class of modern society is clarified and that fragment is discarded where the final conclusion states the reactionary and utopian character of Sismondi! But that's not all. Efrussi did not limit himself to extracting a fragment of the opinion which gives no notion of the whole opinion, and thus presented the economist's attitude to Sismondi in a completely false light. He wished to still further embellish Sismondi, as if merely transmitting the views of the same economist.

"Let us add to this," says Efrussi, "that according to some theoretical views Sismondi is a predecessor of the most outstanding newest economists {154}: let us recall his views on income from capital, on crisis, his classification of national income, etc." (ibid.). Thus, instead of adding to the indication of Sismondi's merits by the German economist the indication by the same economist of Sismondi's petty-bourgeois point of view, of the reactionary character of his utopia – Efrussi adds to the list of Sismondi's merits precisely those parts of his teaching (such as "classification of national income") in which, according to the opinion of this very economist, there is not a single scientific word.

We will be objected: Efrussi may not at all share the opinion that the explanation of economic doctrines should be sought in economic reality; he may be deeply convinced that A. Wagner's theory of "classification of national income" is the "most outstanding" theory. – Gladly believed. But what right had he to flirt with the theory which the Populist gentlemen so love to say